Death penalty merits a rethink

THE efforts to save an Indian woman on death row in Yemen should make us rethink whether we ourselves ought to continue with the severest of punishments. Nimisha Priya, a nurse, has been found guilty of murder. She allegedly injected the victim (who was known to her) with sedatives while visiting him in jail. So far, attempts to prevent her execution have failed.

One last attempt is being made, and that is to offer blood money to the family of the deceased and seek forgiveness. The blood money is said to be $40,000 (around Rs 34 lakh). A substantial sum, if not the entire amount, has been raised and deposited by the family with a lawyer. The financial part seems to have been taken care of, and only forgiveness is anxiously awaited. Our government is doing all it can to assist the family.

We always say “let the law take its course”, and so it is in the case of this woman. So why is the government extending a helping hand to avert her execution? Is it because the government believes she is not guilty or was not given a fair trial? Is it because she is an Indian and the government will do what it can to save the life of an Indian? Is it because the government feels the punishment is too harsh? Whatever be the reason, the government must be commended for rendering assistance.

This case should prompt the government to reflect on the need to have the death penalty on the statute books. After all, when we execute a person, we are taking the life of an Indian citizen. It hardly matters whether the Indian is executed in our country or on foreign soil. True, our courts are circumspect and extremely careful in awarding the death penalty — they do so in the rarest of the rare cases. But would it not be proper for the prosecution to refrain from demanding the death penalty?

What purpose is served by executing a person? The usual answer, when the death penalty is discussed, is that it is a deterrent against heinous crimes. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support that argument. The US has a high number of persons on death row; it also executes a rather large number of them. Has this deterred individuals from committing murders or mass shootings in schools or most recently the carnage in New Orleans?

On the other hand, it appears that despite the abolition of the death penalty, cases of heinous crimes have not increased. France did it in 1981; over four decades later, there is no evidence that the count of heinous crimes has risen. Zimbabwe, which abstained from voting on the UN resolution for a moratorium on the death penalty in December last year, has now abolished capital punishment. Let’s wait for the impact of this decision.

Tens of thousands of rape and murder cases are registered in our country every year. We also have several instances of terror attacks. I believe that in all these cases involving heinous crimes, justice will be served to a great extent if investigations are concluded expeditiously and the trial is completed within a year. For this, our police need to be highly trained to investigate crimes; our prosecuting authorities and prosecutors should also be fully equipped with solid and scientific evidence.

In a recent case reported by a newspaper, 48 out of 49 witnesses turned hostile. What does this tell us about our criminal justice system? Only that a massive overhaul is needed. But, instead of improving our system, there is a demand for the imposition of the severest possible punishment — death sentence. That won’t help us improve the system.

Courts across the country need to expedite trials and disposal of appeals in criminal cases so that a conclusion is reached quickly. Perpetrators of crimes, heinous or otherwise, will get the message that they will be hauled up sooner rather than later and will have to serve time in prison.

Some courts have begun to take the view that sending a person to the gallows may not necessarily be the best solution. In the recent past, there have been cases in which courts have awarded 20-25 years’ rigorous imprisonment to a convict instead of the death sentence. Sometimes, such long terms of incarceration are awarded without any provision for remission. There have been a few cases in which the convict was sentenced to imprisonment for the rest of his or her life. Is this as bad or as good as the death penalty? Many countries seem to think so. Don’t forget that Abu Salem was extradited from Portugal on the condition that he would not be given the death penalty.

There is no doubt that the abolition of the death penalty is a very controversial and tricky subject, particularly in cases of rape, murder, sexual abuse of children and terror attacks. Nevertheless, we need to discuss this subject threadbare and have some sort of a policy or consensus; otherwise, the death penalty may get reduced to a game of chance. Meanwhile, let’s pray for the woman in Yemen.